Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Diabetic Product XIGAMET loses to ZITAMET under heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted Glenmark an interim injunction against Gleck Pharma in a trademark dispute over “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET”. The court found that the similarities between the trademarks could confuse consumers, leading to potential health risks, and applied strict standards to prevent such confusion. Continue Reading Diabetic Product XigaMet Loses to ZitaMet Under Heightened Pharma Trademark Scrutiny

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Glaxo's BETNESOL vs Zee's BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?"

Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

The Delhi High Court enforced a decree favoring Glaxo Group Limited against Mr. Rajiv Mukul, restraining the use of ‘BETNEVIN’ due to trademark infringement of ‘BETNESOL’. The Court upheld that infringement determination could be made in an execution petition to enforce the decree of injunction. Continue Reading Glaxo’s BETNESOL vs Zee’s BETNEVIN : Who do you BET on?

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date"

Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date

The Delhi High Court overturned the patent refusal for Alimentary Health’s probiotic formulation, emphasizing the need for an objective analysis of inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The Court criticized the Patent Office’s decision and highlighted the importance of avoiding hindsight bias in evaluating patent applications. Continue Reading Inventive Step Assessment: To be Anchored in Knowledge of a Person with Ordinary Skill on the Priority Date

Read more

The High Court of Bombay granted Pidilite an interim injunction against Astral for design infringement, protecting its unique container design.

Pidilite Contains Astral from infringing its Container Design

On June 13, 2024, the High Court of Bombay granted Pidilite Industries Limited an interim injunction against Astral Limited, protecting its registered container design. The Court found Astral’s design to be deceptively similar and upheld the novelty and distinctiveness of Pidilite’s design. Continue Reading Pidilite Contains Astral from infringing its Container Design

Read more

The Bombay High Court issues an ad-interim injunction in Karan Johar's lawsuit, blocking a film's title that unlawfully exploits his name and celebrity status.

Court halts release of film exploiting Karan Johar’s celebrity status

On June 13, 2024, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Karan Johar, restraining Indiapride Advisory Pvt Ltd. from using his name and attributes in their film’s title, citing unlawful exploitation of his celebrity status and potential public confusion. Continue Reading Court halts release of film exploiting Karan Johar’s celebrity status

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Court Cancels 'Crocksclub' trademark"

Crocs croaks out its clone! Court Cancels ‘Crocksclub’ trademark

Crocs Inc. successfully filed a rectification petition to remove the trademark CROCKSCLUB, securing sole rights to the CROCS trademark in India. The court ruled in favor of Crocs Inc., highlighting the likelihood of confusion and risk of association with CROCS goods. Continue Reading Crocs croaks out its clone! Court Cancels ‘Crocksclub’ trademark

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Emami vs Unilever : Court says No “Glow" to Unilever's "Handsome""

Emami vs Unilever : Court says No “Glow” to Unilever’s “Handsome”

The Calcutta High Court ruled that while Emami could not establish trademark infringement, it succeeded in its passing off claim against Unilever’s ‘Glow and Handsome’. The court ordered Unilever to cease using the mark within a month, upholding Emami’s rights and protecting its brand reputation. Continue Reading Emami vs Unilever : Court says No “Glow” to Unilever’s “Handsome”

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Let's see who gets the 'Zee'! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment"

Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

The Madras High Court overturned the Trade Marks Registry’s decision to reject Prem Biyani’s trademark application for the mark “Zee” under Class 5, which was opposed by Zee Entertainment. The Court noted that Zee Entertainment’s mark, although well-known, was not registered under Class 5 and did not appear in isolation. The case has been remanded to the Trade Marks Registry for reconsideration. Continue Reading Let’s see who gets the ‘Zee’! Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment

Read more

Connect with Us

BananaIP Counsels

No.40, 3rd Main Road, JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

Telephone: +91-76250 93758+91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34
Email: contact@bananaip.com

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes

© 2004-2024 BananaIP Counsels. All Rights Reserved.